12 minutes ago, YesitwasaWin4theAges said:

They took their time with Carlton’s review, they couldn't give a rats when the shoe was on the other foot.

But they took their time with this review as well. The AFL has ticked off on Carlton’s management of Jacob Weitering in Friday night’s semi-final win over Melbourne as the Blues this week prepare for selection “heartbreak.

44 minutes ago, YearOfTheDees said:

But they took their time with this review as well. The AFL has ticked off on Carlton’s management of Jacob Weitering in Friday night’s semi-final win over Melbourne as the Blues this week prepare for selection “heartbreak.

He was concussed, who are these f wits trying to fool.

Double standards all-round.

Edited September 18, 20231 yr by YesitwasaWin4theAges

1 hour ago, YearOfTheDees said:

But they took their time with this review as well. The AFL has ticked off on Carlton’s management of Jacob Weitering in Friday night’s semi-final win over Melbourne as the Blues this week prepare for selection “heartbreak.

Of course they did. Guy stumbling struggling to stand up and no doctor, trainer, physio. Nothing to see here.

Also, Cripps was allowed to stay on with blood dripping from his nose, and on his jumper.

Remember that game at Geelong when Touhy kicked their winner after the siren?  (?2018  round 1)

Max had a tiny cut on his lip(from another head-high non-free), with  a minute to go. He was sent off for the blood rule , and Tmac had to leave the backline to ruck. The ball went down there, they goaled, won, and  at the end of that season we missed making the top 4 by 4 premiership points .

After the Adelaide debacle, do posters genuinely believe that the AFL are going overturn a goal at the break of play if they're not 500% sure it was or wasn't touched?

 

It has been very clear for many weeks that Gil and his merry mob want a Collingwood v Carlton GF and will stop at nothing to achieve it.

Carlton d Melbourne by overturning Petracca's clear goal - make the top 8 out of nowhere.

Carlton d Sydney narrowly with some dubious ARC calls.

Maynard free to play after that disgraceful assault on Angus

Carlton d Melbourne with (was it) 3 or 4 ARCs in their favour especially the one in question here - I don't remember seeing the Carlton defender pleading a case.  Why can't we see it here?   

AFL allocating us umpire 22, who crucifies us every time

I only hope that Brisbane crush Carlton,( or win by a point with a shonky score  review making the difference), and that GW$ demolish Collingwood right from the first bounce.  Toby Greene ironing out Maynard would be the icing on the cake - in a football act of course.

Edited September 18, 20231 yr by monoccular

ARC said this angle determined the overturning

1 hour ago, monoccular said:

It has been very clear for many weeks that Gil and his merry mob want a Collingwood v Carlton GF and will stop at nothing to achieve it.

Carlton d Melbourne by overturning Petracca's clear goal - make the top 8 out of nowhere.

Carlton d Sydney narrowly with some dubious ARC calls.

Maynard free to play after that disgraceful assault on Angus

Carlton d Melbourne with (was it) 3 or 4 ARCs in their favour especially the one in question here - I don't remember seeing the Carlton defender pleading a case.  Why can't we see it here?   

AFL allocating us umpire 22, who crucifies us every time

I only hope that Brisbane crush Carlton,( or win by a point with a shonky score  review making the difference), and that GW$ demolish Collingwood right from the first bounce.  Toby Greene ironing out Maynard would be the icing on the cake - in a football act of course.

I hope they cop a fisting like the one we gave Geelong in the Prelim in 21.

 

20 minutes ago, No10 said:

ARC said this angle determined the overturning

No  definite evidence in that footage  that was  enough to overturn the soft call .

Carlton are so lucky so often with adjudications that it really makes you wonder how.

5 minutes ago, Jumping Jack Clennett said:

No  definite evidence in that footage  that was  enough to overturn the soft call .

Carlton are so lucky so often with adjudications that it really makes you wonder how.

It wasn’t a soft call. It was a goal and nobody asked them to look at it.

I’m not usually into this kind of thing but it’s a borderline conspiracy. 

 

Yep, this one was touched and seemed clear enough on the second viewing.

But what fascinated me was the high resolution and high frames-per-second footage available in general play in the middle of the ground compared to the 1980s censorship blur that is available for goal-line decisions.

Every department at AFLHQ is amateurish except the marketing department which is obnoxious.

Which second viewing?

1 hour ago, No10 said:

ARC said this angle determined the overturning

FullSizeRender.MOV

In super slow mo frame by frame and blown up very close it looks touched for mine.

I can rest easy on this one at least

Edited September 18, 20231 yr by Demon Dynasty

19 minutes ago, Demon Dynasty said:

In super slow mo frame by frame and blown up very close it looks touched for mine.

I can rest easy on this one at least

Frame by frame, zoomed in, I’d have to say not touched.

Doesn’t matter to me in regards to the result, we lost for many other reasons.
But I do care there isn’t the kind of aggressive pushback that would happen if this was a different club. That’s twice in a month (against the same team) that we’ve lost by less than a goal and ARC has made a critical decision against, with questionable evidence. Zero discussion in the media.

Would this happen to Carlton or to Collingwood?

10 hours ago, monoccular said:

AFL allocating us umpire 22, who crucifies us every time.

Ask Port Adelaide fans what they think of the same umpire’s handling of their recent games vs Carlton. 

20 hours ago, WalkingCivilWar said:

Then how on earth did the Ben Keays goal vs Sydney remain a behind?

For mine, that was the biggest howler of the season since there was absolutely no question it was a goal, a fact that was confirmed when the AFL came out and apologised for it. At the time someone on here said who cares it’s Adelaide, I hate ‘em anyways. But that’s not the point. Even disregarding the fact that it cost Adelaide a chance to play finals, it was the most outrageous goal decision we’ve seen in a long time. 

Because it wasn’t given a goal there was no time to review. Game had restarted 

Too many goals and games this year were decided on fuzzy vision of 'fingernail' touches of the ball.  It is guesswork both by the umpire and whoever is viewing ARC.

The AFL needs to change this.

An option would be that if the ball is 'touched' by fingers or fingertips while the ball is in the air it is a goal!  It would need to be touched by the palm, back of the hand or arm.  Or have a variation of that with a more substantial definition of 'touched'. 

A rule change is especially required for when a flimsy touch is on a ball in the air in the goal square. 

Edited September 18, 20231 yr by Lucifers Hero

33 minutes ago, Lucifers Hero said:

Too many goals and games this year were decided on fuzzy vision of 'fingernail' touches of the ball.  It is guesswork both by the umpire and whoever is viewing ARC.

The AFL needs to change this.

An option would be that if the ball is 'touched' by fingers or fingertips while the ball is in the air it is a goal!  It would need to be touched by the palm, back back of the hand or arm.  Or have some variation of that. 

A rule change is especially required for when a flimsy touch is on a ball in the air in the goal square. 

How much easier if it is a goal if it goes through the goals.  No touched, no posters, no guessing. 

Would also force defenders to keep the ball in play rather than try to put it through. 

I have never worked out how a "touched goal" is a point, but a "touched behind" is also a point.

Edited September 18, 20231 yr by george_on_the_outer

2 minutes ago, george_on_the_outer said:

How much easier if it is a goal if it goes through the goals.  No touched, no posters, no guessing. 

Would also force defenders to keep the ball in play rather than try to put it through. 

I have never worked out how a "touched goal" is a point, but a "touched behind" is also a point.

Agreed.  It goes thru it is a goal but reckon that might be a bridge to far right now.

51 minutes ago, Lucifers Hero said:

Too many goals and games this year were decided on fuzzy vision of 'fingernail' touches of the ball.  It is guesswork both by the umpire and whoever is viewing ARC.

The AFL needs to change this.

An option would be that if the ball is 'touched' by fingers or fingertips while the ball is in the air it is a goal!  It would need to be touched by the palm, back of the hand or arm.  Or have a variation of that with a more substantial definition of 'touched'. 

A rule change is especially required for when a flimsy touch is on a ball in the air in the goal square. 

Or just design a ball that has the touch / snicko science built into it.

Until then it's a goal unless proven inconclusively.

Or if that technology isn't available, as George has highlghted, if it goes through the two sticks (provided the entire ball breaks the plane) then it's a goal, touched or not.

Snicking of the ball by hand or finger tips really doesn't make alot of sense. 

The aim of the game is to kick the ball through the big sticks.  If it goes through it goes through, provided the last action was a kick from team kicking for goal.

So regardless, you would still need the snicko ball technology to ensure hands/knees/head/body hadn't come into play from a ricochet off a fellow player.

It would seem it's snicko ball or bust then!

18 minutes ago, george_on_the_outer said:

How much easier if it is a goal if it goes through the goals.  No touched, no posters, no guessing. 

Would also force defenders to keep the ball in play rather than try to put it through. 

I have never worked out how a "touched goal" is a point, but a "touched behind" is also a point.

Edited September 18, 20231 yr by Demon Dynasty

No conclusive evidence in that clip! Thinking that it was probably touched, or that it might have been touched is not conclusive, therefore the soft call stands! Stitch up!

It was certainly inconclusive on the big screen, but I don't know if the third umpire had other footage.

As stated yesterday, the Adelaide V Sydney goal umpiring howler would have had to be the AFL's lowest moment since the competition changed its name in 1990. Cost a side a finals series.

Do people really think they would have made the most unforced howler 4 weeks later by incorrectly overturning a goal that should not have been overturned. I think not.

They clearly had conclusive evidence that wasn't available for the broadcaster to show the viewers.

10 minutes ago, Bring-Back-Powell said:

As stated yesterday, the Adelaide V Sydney goal umpiring howler would have had to be the AFL's lowest moment since the competition changed its name in 1990. Cost a side a finals series.

Do people really think they would have made the most unforced howler 4 weeks later by incorrectly overturning a goal that should not have been overturned. I think not.

They clearly had conclusive evidence that wasn't available for the broadcaster to show the viewers.

Clearly? You jest! Where is this footage that "clearly" shows a touch?

22 hours ago, Redleg said:

From the mistake on Tracc's goal against the Blues, which cost us 2nd position and possibly a flag tilt, I believe there have been 7 Arc decisions involving Carlton and guess what, every single one of them went Carlton's way. 

Luck, coincidence, or interference in a game?

PS. Re the ANB goal, which was called a goal by the Goal Umpire and not called touched by any field Umpire, it was a reversal of a goal, touched apparently, which again would have won us the game and which I can't recall seeing similar before.

Adopting my MFCSS hat I could say every new ruling always seems to go against us, Moloney weeks for non contact, Trengove 4 weeks for a sling tackle, where victim best on ground next week, Kozzie 2 weeks for a high bump with no injury and victim laughing, Sparrow sling where victim's head didn't contact the ground, etc, etc, etc. I am sure you can all come up with countless more examples.

The vagaries of the goal line decisions and the inconsistency of the MRO does my head in and I agree we seem to be on the wrong side of these on a regular basis.

The thing that really irks me is the guessing that goes on when an Umpire is clearly unsighted. There was a great example during the Carlton vs Sydney game. The Goal Umpire gives a soft call of "Behind", "I think it was touched" The ARC reviews and gives an insufficient evidence to overturn ruling. The problem was; during the playback of the vision, the ball clearly obscured the players hand and so it was impossible for the Goal Umpire to tell if it was touched or not.

Essentially and much like the Kozzie result earlier in the year, the result was determined on suspicion.